May 30, 2004

HAWK-DOVE CONVERSIONS CONTINUE APACE

Noting a reversal of opinion among the previously hawkish, Mark Steyn writes:

Fourteen months ago, there were respectable cases to be made for and against the war. None of the big stories of the past few weeks alters either argument.

The bleats of "Include me out!" from the fairweather warriors isn't a sign of their belated moral integrity but of their fundamental unseriousness. Anyone who votes for the troops to go in should be grown-up enough to know that, when they do, a few of them will kill civilians, bomb schools, abuse prisoners. It happens in every war. These aren't stunning surprises, they're inevitable: it might be a bombed mosque or a hospital, a shattered restaurant or a slaughtered wedding party, but it will certainly be something.

Okay, a freaky West Virginia tramp leading a naked Iraqi round on a dog leash with a pair of Victoria's Secret panties on his head and a banana up his butt, maybe that wasn't so inevitable. But, that innovation aside, the aberrations of war have nothing to do with the only question that matters: despite what will happen along the way, is it worth doing?

I say yes.

So do I. Be interesting to hear from any former hawks on this, however. At what point, for you, did the war become unsupportable?

UPDATE. Beneath the headline "Iraq doomed, once the neo-cons won the White House battle", hysterical ultra-dove Robert Manne shrieks:

Even former enthusiasts now generally acknowledge that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq is the greatest disaster in the recent history of US foreign policy. Nothing is more important than to try to understand how this catastrophe occurred.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 30, 2004 11:09 PM

Comments

I've got to agree with you and Mark Steyn on this one. The press has been acting like our leaders and troops should have been walking on water and passing out fishes and loaves, when setbacks and tragedies are to be expected in any battle.

Are the setbacks bad? Should bad the behavior of some troops be investigated and exposed? Yes and yes. But when people in the media harp on the problems without reporting on any of the successes, that's another problem, and it deserves further examination. A lot of further examination.

Good show on last night that interviewed several of the more seriously wounded soldiers from Iraq. When asked if it was worth it, they all said yes, but the last man had a great qualifier. He basically said it's not worth it if we give up now and pull out.

If we let the country fall into chaos and have terrorist influence now, it's definitely not worth it. I agree with him 100%.

I was never in favour of the war. I am certianly not in favour of pulling out now either. Some leadership and better direction from the start would have been preferable.
I note the the PM elect intends to recall four Iraqi Army divisions. Good.

I'm in favor of the war and in favor of expansion of the war. I think we should let the army/marines do what they do best - break things - then stand off and let the Muslim bastards rearrange the rubble among their civilian selves. Couple of six day wars through Syria and Iran and we may be able to bring this thing to a quick end.

In the US the media, university types and generally the "elite" were never in favor of the war, whereas about 70% of the American people(from a Pew poll) were in favor of it. The Elites are doing everything they can to undermine Bush and therefore undermine the war. But I agree with Steyns piece, Bush's recent lower poll rating are reflective of the Jacksonians dissatisfaction with the lack of aggressive action. This is backed up by the fact that Kerry's numbers have not improved as Bush has lost ground. Bush needs to continue to talk to this group, make the case for our continued presence in Iraq and above all else win.

I went from Hawk to Dove when I realised that the US admin had done less planning on the down side of the war than me, a lone crazed war-blogger. Or they did the planning alright, but lied about the dismal scenarios. Either way, thats bad.

In particular, the Bushies did not appear to realise that the Suuni minority are unlikely to accept democracy since at a national level they are outnumbered by Shiites and at a regional level they do not have sufficient oil to keep them at a standard of living to which they are accustomed. Long run civil disputes, regional power plays by hostile states and terrorist infiltration are the likely result.

This is not a good return for an investment of ~US $300 billion and ~15,000 KIA.

The Muslim troops we have met in the field have deomonstrated no morale and no apptitude for small unit tactics. They have no place to train. They cannot organize above a certain level. They are sitting ducks when they organize, using existing communications, for attack. They can be killed in more or less industrial quantities if they want to come out; left alone if they want to relax and get back to work.

We would be insane as a nation to back off now. Does anyone think backing off would militate against another attack on our soil? Ricidulous. We must keep the death cult at work elsewhere...trying to protect the shabby symbols of a sick religion and the despotic systems that support it.

It's been this way since Darius and we can't quit on western freedom now.

I'm not only still a hawk, in your terms, I'm one of the few who is gratified by the way the war is going, and the only thing I don't like is that people are abandoning Bush for doing it right.

The function of this battle -- and it's a battle, perhaps a campaign, not a war -- is not to provide the Marines and the Airborne with more battle ribbons, nor is it to make American troops look ferocious, nor is it to make America look good. The function of the battle in Iraq is to produce an Iraq that's a real, working country with a polity and an economy, instead of a rump-end of the Ottoman Empire arbitrarily whacked off by British surveyors and diplomats.

The Iraqis have to do that themselves. Not because we don't want to, but because we can't -- it's as close to a physical impossibility as sociology ever can be.

If we give the Iraqis the "security" they want and need, we're stuck. We become, in fact, the New Ba'ath, more indulgent and with nicer policies but still the ones who are running things, and having to keep it up forever. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day -- and comes back tomorrow for another one.

Details differ, but if you look at Iraq the way I (and Wretchard the Cat) do, the policy is consistent: bash the uprisings and simultaneously recruit, form, and train Iraqi forces until the uprisings are little enough for the Iraqis to smash. Fallujah is an American triumph. So is Najaf -- not because American forces defeated the "insurgents" but because they did not: the Iraqis did. And the most important part of it is that there are Iraqis looking at one another with amazed expressions and saying, "By Allah the wise and merciful, we can do this!" The second most important thing is that the resulting solution, however tenuous, is an Iraqi solution in terms of Iraqi society, instead of being imposed by an outside force on its terms without any really deep understanding of the society it's nailed on top of. We don't want to be the ones who defeat the "insurgents." What we want to do is hold the Iraqis' coats while they defeat the insurgents.

Bush is OK, and he can handle his enemies, but God (Allah to Zeus, take your pick) help him get past his supposed supporters, especially the ones who think it would have been cool for the Marines or the 82nd Airborne to go through Fallujah like a Taco Supreme through Michael Moore, and that the Army should have flattened every mosque in Najaf and massacred the survivors -- and bitch that the Administration is being "soft on the Islamics" because that didn't happen.

Get a f*ing clue. The Marines say, "every Marine a rifleman." All that's happening is that they're adding a qualification: "...and diplomat," and by available evidence they're better at it than anybody in the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne concession down Foggy Bottom. Just because it doesn't mean they get to stack dead enemies like cordwood and post the photos on the net doesn't mean they didn't win. And abandoning Bush because his tactics don't always result in mondo explosions and blood running in the streets is f*ing contemptible. Among other things it says the Leftists are right about you. Bunch of murderous imperialists who get all huffy when Feerless Leeder isn't murderous or imperialist enough for you.

Let's not be fooled into this " still" supporting the war nonsense. To speak thus is to adopt the language and posturing of the other side. To the contrary, I frequently ask my ( few) left wing friends if they "still" oppose the war.

I havent seen anything yet that would sway my support of the war. Yet I've seen plenty of god things that I should think would sway the appeasers. I suppose it all comes down to where you get your news from.

You see right through us, Mr. Logical Fallacy. Only people with family members in the Iraq war right now should have opinions. About anything.

And Jack S., you have no earthly idea what war plans were or weren't. I'm sure it would be fun if we could all pitch in on the war plans, maybe a big pizza party with a risk board and some post-its, but it turns out we have professionals to do that, and any oversimplified analysis of what they did or didn't do right is pointless now.

Let me explain something very simple to you: first, telegraphing our plans isn't gonna happen, for excellent reasons you should understand. So stop pretending you know what's going on, or why. Second, people in power don't get there by telling you and me what's going on at the highest levels of government. If past wars are any indication, you're not going to know until much later what really happened, what the plans were, and if they succeeded. I'm sure it drives you mad, but you can't control the War on Terror. And thank God for that.

With all due respect to the master, Steyn seems to be making an 'in-house' point here for the benefit of a few journalists - about three of whom he names. Most of the others were against the war ab initio.

The British have a very nuanced conservatism that is usually suspicious of the Manifest Destiny strand of American foreign policy. That is, when the latter is in play in international affairs - which it usually isn't. On at least one famous occasion, the Americans were encouraged by Churchill to awaken themselves from their distant and peaceful slumber in order to save... well, you know the rest.

Elite opinion in Britain, even in the ranks of the most right-wing conservatives (perhaps especially in their ranks), tends to have a patronising view of both Americans and Americanism. Its proponents typically argue that if only they were in charge of Iraq (and elsewhere) things would be running more smoothly. "We managed the Raj and policed Northern Ireland" is their cry.

BFD! They conveniently overlook disasters in military management and public relations like Gallipoli, the Easter Rebellion and Dunkirk. All of which, incidentally, make even Abu Ghraib look like small chips. The people who brought you Bloody Sunday should keep their spotted-dick holes shut about relatively minor prison infractions in the rear echelons of an operation involving 137,000 soldiers.

I thought it was telling that one of the journalists Steyn mentions said she could no longer put up with defending the war in social settings. This confirms my suspicion that this is a war that will be lost only if a critical mass of influential people tire of being embarrassed at dinner parties. Unfortunately, opinionistas in Washington and London go to a lot of swank turnouts.

Hawks on Iraq may become like smokers in the weeks and months ahead. They'll congregate together on the political sidewalk, speaking the same language, holding the same contempt for the puritans who've banished them and risking the same ostracism from snobbish montebanks who will soon be decrying the 'scandal' of American inaction in, say, Sudan. Well pass me a Winnie Blue and fuck them!

History will never prove smokers right (alas and cough) but it will vindicate the reasoned and persevering supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let's wait for the handover, for the subsequent home-grown democratic politicking and tweaking of the system and, importantly, for the probable economic advantages to start flowing. That will be crucial. Wealth destroys fanaticism, unless it's greedily cornered as it is by the plutocratic Saudis. A labour movement in Iraq would be very good. Eek - I really said that.

Not one event since the commencement of hostilities a little over a year ago has withered my support for this campaign. The major positives the war has demonstrated are these:

* the far-from-quiescent power and will of the United States when and if it is attacked; * the relatively easy reality of regime change for dictators with links to terrorists or with what they imagine to be secret V2-style WMD plans to smash neighbours and gain strategic advantage over them (note well Iran);* for the UN to become relevant and deserve its finances and American military backbone, it must recognise the reality that democracy = peace in the long run - this means punitive discrimination against tyrannies must be a part of its everyday modus operandi, as its founders intended.

One final thing: the reverse is true as well - doves have become hawks. John Kerry is now ratcheting up the rhetoric about hunting and "destroying" terrorists if he is elected President. There are few ifs or buts on this in his latest utterances. The whole discourse in America has shifted to a presupposition of action, not merely words, against terrorism.

Another Kerry flip-flop? Maybe. Or perhaps it is the stupendously inarticulate George Bush's most elequent and enduring piece of evangelism.

Building a democracy is nice. If America can do it then that is fabulous.

But at the end of the day, the Iraqis are responsible for their own freedom. If you say "humanitarian" yeah yeah yeah, well that is good- but then why aren't we invading China, Burma, etcetera.

I mean, you don't spend all that money and all that blood just to bring democracy to Iraq. That is a pleasant side effect, but is it really worth it?

The good guys are still facing heavy shit in Afghanistan, and that IS worth it- because we managed to smash the Taleban and kill lots of al-Queda.

But given that there are no WMD that are a serious threat to you, me, and our friends in America, I would not dare to tell a serviceman's family that losing their son/daughter in Iraq was worth it.

If there WAS WMD in Iraq, then yes, it would be worth the whole lot. Lyndee England and all.

There's been Lyndee England's in all wars. (except they were all guys before. We live now in an equal opportunity age.)

I don't accept anything the Lefty lot say about the war. Even if we found an Iraqi Manhatten Project, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Now, having said all that, now that we are in the situation we are in.. Saddam has been smashed and arrested(Great!) The UN has been discredited (Great!) and we have a very messy Iraq (not so Great).. where do we go from here?

Fucked if I know. I'm a drunken sports blogger but my SWAG is that we should do the best we can to build a functional democracy, kill as many al-Queda terrorists on the way as we can, build as good a democracy in Iraq as we can, and then get coalition forces out as soon as possible.

As for the usual lefty critics, I should also point out that there were some horrendous fuckups in the Second World War too. That doesn't mean that the war wasn't worth fighting. You learn what you can and you MOVE ON! to the next battle.

I am a hawk on Iraq, but also believe that it is too early to judge the strategy that is being applied there at present. Obviously mistakes have been and will continue to be made, but this administration (at least in the defense dept.) seems adepts at adapting to current events (think Rumsfeld's memo about what could be improved a while back, and the def. dept's investigation into the abu ghiraib situation before it broke in the press).

With regards to the Chickenhawk charges, I am two days shy of basic training for the Air Force. However, I do not believe that that gives my arguments any more weight on these issues than anyone else's.

How about real warriors and war heroes like Anthony Zinni and Wesley Clark, who saw through the fraud and foolish ignorance of Bush's war from the very beginning? Their word counts for me much more than the dilettante effusions of keyboard warriors like Mark Steyn.

"But given that there are no WMD that are a serious threat to you, me, and our friends in America, I would not dare to tell a serviceman's family that losing their son/daughter in Iraq was worth it." So, the shells filled with mustard gas & binary sarin were what, chopped liver? You even bother reading the Kay Report? The R&D programs were in full swing, with production held in abeyance until the sanctions were lifted.

Clark: silver star in Vietnam. Current judgment: Iraq was an "almost unprecedented geo strategic mistake."
Zinni: Centcom commander for three years. Special negotiator for Israel-Palestine. His current conclusion: the top five civilians in the Pentagon should all be fired.

Oh wow lefty redux, you agree with the military/ex-military people who agree with you! And that invalidates the military/ex-military people who don't don't agree with you how? Just because Clarke and Zinni have a bunch of stars and medals doesn't make them right. Credentials and experience are useful only up to a point.

As for Sissyfuss using a fake email -- what a surprise. Most trolls don't have the balls to use a real email address. Most trolls are cowards, huddling behind fake email addresses and fake names. That makes all their accusations of "Chickenhawk!" and "Have you served?" truly laughable.

For the war. Saddam was a monster. Oh, and Jack, less people were killed in Iraq this year than in the last however many years, each one, of Saddam's tyranny. Worth it, in human lives? You tell me.

In fact, after I read this morning the Arab terrorists in Saudi asked the hostages which were Christians and which Muslims, and then killed the Christians, calling them "crusaders," I'm even more for the war on terrorism.

Scott? Poison gas was included in the list of WMDs Saddam was not supposed to be playing around with. The WMD list wasn't based on your list of what constitutes a scary weapon. Maybe you should stick to sports.

I didn't think going to war in Iraq was a good idea. Nonetheless, establishing a viable democracy smack next door to Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, and the nutty mullahtocracy on the other side is a worthwhile goal.

Despite the incessant howling of the pessimistic press, I think it seems to be going well. There'll probably be more suicide bombings, and a few senior politicians taken out. And, sadly, more Coalition and civilian casualties are inevitable. But if the US can establish a modern, democratic government operating under a liberal constitution in that part of the world in less than two years, that will go down as a remarkable achievement.

As others above have pointed out, perspective will only be available in twenty years time. And success will only embitter the left, who, I speculate, will never ever accept any future Iraqi government as 'legitimate'.

I am stil a hawk as I have been since the beginning of this war. Even stronger, nothing (well except the leash and banana thing mentioned earlier) that has happened in Iraq since, differs from predictions I made about it in the run-up to this conflict.

Nancy -Trailer park trash don't wear Victoria's Secret.
I hate to disagree on such a foundational issue, but I'd say trailer park trash are Victoria's Secret's target clientele. You may've been confused by the fact that some of them live in big houses now.

Zach -
Good luck during basic, though I'm sure you won't even need it. And on this Memorial Day, thank you!

It kills me that some people thing that sarin is no big deal. That shell held almost 4 liters of a binary nerve agent. This was enough to kill several thousand people. Equivalent to a small tactical nuke. If the terrorist find 2 more of these and use then effectively, that is one small city gone. Interestingly enough, this weapon was not on the declared list that Saddam published.

When I read something like the last para in this link:http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040607/usnews/7najaf_2.htm

Then I know that what I read in the mainstream media is absolute b.s.

-----------exerpt------------
Publicly furious with the occupation, the citizens are also privately blaming Sadr for bringing the fighting to the holiest Shiite city, and they say that they will be grateful when he and his ragtag bandit army leave. "Things were very good two months ago. It was a peaceful town. Then people from outside our city came in [and] the majority of the fighters came from outside of Najaf," said Ali Nasser, 25, while eating a lunch of stewed lamb and rice in the emptied bazaar. "When the Americans first came here, they played soccer and dominoes with us. They were just like our friends. We didn't even see a tank."
-------------exerpt----------------

at no time has my support wavered, I was unsure we should go in at first so I studied, prayed, read, talked and thought about it a lot. It was based upon THAT which I made my decision, not how well things or going or the latest news, and that hasn't changed.

I started out for the war and still am. It has been said before, but the prisoner abuse stories demonstrated that what is great about democracy is not that the human beings in it are better; there are losers everywhere you go. It is that in this democracy, prisoner abuse is not the policy, and when it occurs it is reported and dealt with.

Accountability and the ability to fix problems = that is what to built a country on. I hope it takes.

Neither Lincoln or FDR - Commanders-in-Chief during America's biggest ever wars - ever served a day in uniform. Reagan oversaw the defeat of the Soviets having served in WWII only as an actor. Overseers of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon - all had served in World War II.

So what is your point exactly?

Civilians run democracies, not soldiers. In civilian life, the latter command respect, never obedience.

Joni — Don't diss crackerette and her bannana. Remember, she's from West Virginia and the closest they can get to real porn there that doesn't involve livestock is those lame softcore eurotrash imports like Ilsa and Emmanuelle movies. She was just doing the best she could. I blame it on the media.

Sisyphus — Nine years in the infantry. Brother in law in the Towers, both times it was bombed. Sister who had to walk through a quarter mile of pitch-black subway when the towers came down. Brother in the fire companies on scene that day who had his lungs wrecked breathing that crap.

I'm a conservative who was ambivalent about the Iraq war to begin with and increasingly thinking it was a lousy idea -- although having gotten into it, we must win it. But to address your question, the big points for me were:

1) The absence of any meaningful WMD. (And please spare me the hair splitting. I'm aware of what's been found and I can assure you that we didn't go to war over the threat of a gallon of sarin and some old centrifuge pieces.)

2) The fact that the majority of Iraqis are completely unwilling to stand up to the various extremist factions. The Afghans are getting the government they deserve; the US is now struggling to keep the Iraqis from getting the government they're trying to bring upon themselves.

And by the way, I'm sorry that the WMDs weren't all piled up in a big warehouse with a sign saying "Forbidden Weapons!" on it. WMDs were not the point of the invasion, the point was to remove a threat which Iraq under Hussein was with or without a stockpile of nukes and anthrax. Hussein had lots of money, and he was using it not only to build giant self-aggrandizing monuments and palaces but to pay terrorists to make mayhem hither and yon. As for the mysterious "missing" WMDs that everyone seems so concerned about, probably because they all grew up watching movies about nuclear holocaust destroying civilization (and therefore all the good beer), Saddam had plenty of time, while his cronies in the UN hemmed and hawed, to hide them all over the place and/or move them across the border to his Baathist pals in Syria.

Recall the situation before the war: Ba'athist tyranny and mass murder. Portions of the country semi-independent "no-fly" zones, protected by U.N. (i.e., U.S. and British) military power. Occasional air-strikes against Iraqi radar stations. Occasional loss of flyers. Entire country impaled on international sanctions. On-again, off-again inspections, by a team led by Hans "See No Evil" Blix.

Recall the options available to Bush 15 months ago:

1. Do nothing. Keep the sanctions, the no-fly zones, the smouldering conflict, the tyranny intact.

2. Lift sanctions. Give Saddam free rei[g]n through the country, and full power to make mischief through the region and the world.

3. Regime change through war.

Option 1 clearly was a disaster, for the people of Iraq and for the region. How great a catastrophe is only becoming clear as the details of the Oil-for-Palaces program become revealed.

Option 2 would be a castrophe. When Saddam moved back into the Kurdish north, the bloodshed there might well have surpassed the slaughter that followed the 1991 uprising. And the self-styled "New Saladin" (who, Sisyphus, was the Tikriti sultan who drove the Crusaders out of Jerusalem) would no doubt use all of his money and influence and prestige from his "victory" over the West to inflame the entire region. Yet this was the option the Zeropeans were agitating for; at the very least, the French oil cartel would have profited handsomely from their contracts with Saddam.

Given the situation as it stood 18 months ago, the only option that made any sense - in truth, the only moral option - was #3: regime change through war.

No doubt mistakes have been made. But it is not clear to me that we know what they are. For example, I often hear that the dismantling of the Iraqi army was a blunder. But again, consider the situation at the time: the Saddam, his boys, and the rest of the Ba'athist leadership still at large; the army organized by the old regime and led by people who who included a generous portion of Ba'ath fanatics. The potential was very high that that army, armed and with its command structure intact, would be suborned by Saddam or Uday, and would have led a rebellion against the Coalition that would have made Najaf and Fallujah pale into insignificance by comparison. And we would all be writing about how Bush was a moron *not* to have dismantled the Iraqi army.

Can we succeed in Iraq? Frankly, we'd have to work hard not to succeed, given that we're bringing the majority of Iraqis what they want: relief from tyranny, the ending of Ba'athist murder and torture, a relatively representative government, and access to Western goodies like satellite TV and the Internet. And never, ever underestimate the effect on morale of things like the Iraqi defeat of Saudi Arabia in Olympic soccer. When all this is over, the Iraqis may hate our guts, but as long as engaged in living their lives rather than in war and mass murder, I can deal with it.

To summarize: The war was the right and moral thing to do, given the situation as it stood in the autumn of 2002. The military victory has been amazingly thorough and amazingly bloodless, all things considered. The peace, and the bringing of an open government to Iraq, still has to be played out, but the administration has handled both major challenges - insurgencies by both Saddamite Sunnis and theocratic Shi'ites - with remarkable finesse.

The major failing of the administration has been on the propaganda front: by not recognizing that the Media is, in fact, its enemy, and setting up alternative sources of information.

We must stay the course. If we do, we will win: and the world will be a better place for it.

To Sisyphus: I have two sons in the service, one Marines and the other Army. My son in the Army has done a tour in "the Sandbox". And you, sir, can kiss my ass all the way downtown.

I've never stopped supporting the war effort. I agree with what others have said that if we quit now, then it was all for nothing and our children will grow up to be slaves of Islam. Anybody who didn't know it was going to be an ugly, dirty fight is a fool.

The biggest and, I now fear, most indestructible myth about the Iraq War is that the Coalition went into Iraq "because it had WMD". That's not so. It went into Iraq because UN resolutions demanded Iraq satisfy the world that it didn't have them. Saddam refused to comply, having been given ample opportunities to do so.

If none are found, so what? All that proves is that Saddam's gamble didn't pay off - although, take note of capt joe's point above - and that he must be the stupidest dictator in the whole history of stupid dictators. Even the United States said "dude, you can stay on if you want, just comply with the resolutions."

And please, don't tell me the UN would eventually have acted on the resolutions' enforcement provisions. We both know two things about that: 1) it's bullshit, Annan would never have acted; and 2) the US would have been required to do it all anyway.

Having said that, I respect your opinions and your right to them. At least you've answered Tim's question thoughtfully. Good for you.

I'm of the opinion that things are actually going quite well in Iraq, all things considered. Most of the country is, after all, pretty quiet. The majority of Iraqis just want to live in peace and feed their families. But it doesn't take very many loonies, in league with the anti-Bush western press, to play hob with public perceptions.

Pulling out would be a grave error. Even weather-vane Kerry is now acknowledging that.

My great-grandfather fought muslim fanatics in the Philippines back in 1901. Back in 1979, when I was working in the 4th ID's 1st Brigade HQ, we were planning for the invasion of Iran. My son enlisted in the Marine Corps after 9/11.

I will always believe that Bush made the right decision on Iraq. I thought we should have done it back in '91. I also feel that we disgraced ourselves as a nation when we withdrew from Vietnam. How did we fall so far in a single generation? Doing the right thing in Iraq now goes a long way toward restoring our honor. We must not abandon the people of Iraq to terror and civil war, or invasion. SOMEONE will fill the vacuum if we turn tail.

And to add: Sisyphus, you idiot. I am the wife and daughter of veterans. What are your qualifications?

Which leads me to an aspect of the chickenhawk fatuousity that I have not seen mentioned: Until very recently, while women could join the military they were not allowed to participate in combat or other hazardous missions. Thus if you're female and older than, say, 40, you're a chickenhawk by definition.

Maybe we could get some suffragettes to chain themselves to the front doors of Indymedia.

Sorry, Sissypuss, but pretty much everyone in uniform despises lefty brats who try to paint us as victims of our leadership. Making face-noises about "supporting the troops", without realizing that the centerpiece of doing so entails supporting our mission, isn't especially endearing either. Being against the war is fine, but don't try to perpetrate that your bleating is on our behalf. We're *plenty* capable of doing our own griping, and don't need disingenuous, gutless vermin speaking for us.

Mark Steyn's piece has that line about al-Sadr al-Wiser. Almost everything he writes has something absolutley brilliant like this. Most journalists are dextrous with puns and word games, but Mark Steyn is uniquely talented at it. Too bad he's a nutcase.

Concerning Iraq, it must be at least 50-50 by now that it ends in utter disaster.

Sisyphus:
My dear husband is in Iraq RIGHT NOW. For the THIRD time, I might add. He's also been to Afghanistan twice. All of this since October 2002. We got married in March 2002.

My support for the war and for President Bush has never wavered, even though I know that the War on Terror will continue for years down the line to cause us to be separated. It doesn't matter, there are things out there that are bigger and more important than us.

Otter — Are you *seriously* asserting that those two shells were *it*? "Come, ya habibi, let us take those two funny-looking bullets from your grandfather's mantel and make jihad upon the infidels?"

We found two. There are more. It would be lovely if we had found Saddam sitting on a throne of VX drums, picking his teeth with his pinky and stroking a hairless cat, but life doesn't imitate the movies.

Iraq is one big ammo dump, and the bureaucratically insane commingling of all different sorts of weapons in the various caches is driving the discovery and disposal teams nuts. The fact is, any WMD's remaining in country are intermingled with conventional ordnance, as we found in 1991, and finding them is going to be a time-consuming dangerous business of dribs and drabs.

Beyond that, WMD's are cropping up in Jordan and the Sudan. There are more.

We were right to cite Saddam's non-cooperation with the UN resolutions and we were right to go in.

Saddam Hussein stated categorically that he wished to have the "First Arab Bomb".To that end Iraq purchased the reactor from France for the nucear facility at Osirak.This was later bombed by the Israelis.
The Iraqi regime was awash with money even under sanctions and in Pakistan Dr Khan's Nuke u' Like business was offering such baubles to those who had the money.
Motive.
Means.
Opportunity.
Previous convictions.
That's enough for a warrant to kick anybodies door in.

Joni--LOL! you're right on the money there! Vict. Secret stuff is extremely cheesy, not to mention poorly made. Oh--and sissypuss, another military spouse here. I agree with the "Jacksonians" Steyn talks about. I do believe we've suffered more casualties than we should have, but not because we shouldn't have gone....I think our guys are expected to do the diplomat/soldier thing to an extent that increases their exposure to risk. And as a military spouse, that is unacceptable to me. But, I'm willing to stipulate that we will be able to analyze everything better in 10 years or so.

Everything starts from the fact that Allah still holds the minds firm. When tens of millions of former muslims no longer believe, there will not be enough power in the world to force them to believe. The loss of faith in Allah will bring with it the loss of faith in Allah's ability to provide martyrs with sex with 72 virgins. When victory in alliance with mighty Allah and orgies in a big brothel in the sky are no longer inducements, religious war against the West will cease.

The destruction of the faith in Allah can be accomplished by the destruction of the holy sites. The simultaneous, spectacular destruction of Mecca, Medina, and the al-Aqsa Mosque, followed by Allah's non-response, will destroy the faith in Allah's power, Allah's concern, and most likely Allah's very existence. So I revise my first remark: Everything starts from our unwillingness to do what is required to destroy the faith in Allah.

We are more concerned to preserve our good opinion of ourselves than to preserve our lives and recover our felt sense of security and freedom. But it is that perverse priority that destroys MY good opinion of us or, more precisely, of most of you. Do you think that sparing muslims, letting Islam go on fostering hatred and terrorism, letting muslims go on killing and enslaving unbelievers and each other, is going to bring you some sort of big reward in the sky? Or do you think God has victory in the bag and all you have to do is wait? Do you share with your enemies a certain weak-mindedness?

I personnaly think the Iraq's going very well - think the only difference that has occured is that I dont talk about it so often.

Anyway going throught the list of objectives and outcomes

1. WMD - haven't been discovered but I think there is no doubt SH would have developed them given half a chance. More important was the discovery that the entire world could be scared by weapons that dont exits. Overall a bit of a curates egg.

2.Saudi Arabia - pulled troops out and the Hous of Faud now activley seems to be combating terrorism. Total sucess here.

3. Democracy human rights etcto - too early judge on the democracy front and the Iraqis themselves are making me wondeer why we choose them to spend loads of money on liberating. Might choose Burma to liberate if I had to do it again. To early to say - but looking sucessful.

4. Terrorism; no major attacks and the dip in bombings in Israel suggest to me that the honey trap is working a bit. Partial sucess.

5. No fly zone and oil for food - I think the wars major acheivement was ending these to utterly ininquitous schemes. Total success

6. Axis of Evil - I think it is now less likely that the world will tackle Iran and Korea successfully. I think Libya is a bit of an irrelevance. Total failure.

Doug raises an interesting point: The Mullahs in Afghanistan destroyed a number of Buddhist statues (preserved now only in an Indiana Jones movie) because Allah was the One True God; maybe if we played a sort of political Mosaic "statue for a statue" bit in the Muslim Holy Lands, it would shake the Faith a little bit....

I'm more of a Hawk than ever now. If Bush will stay the course and the country does not go wobbly and elect an appeaser, we will accomplish something beyond belief in the Middle East. My weekend reading is Colossus, The Price of America's Empire, by Naill Ferguson. He argues convincingly that America is and has always been Imperialist, and we need to get over our apologetics and do it right! That would be using our economic and military might for a worthy cause.
For links to news, views, politics, and government, bookmark All Things Political. For my comments and rants on the days events, check out my Blog.

The battle for Iraq is actually going quite well, I think. But it's ultimate success or failure is up to the Iraqis themselves. And here, there are mixed signals, but the amount of support amongst Iraqis for secularism is a bit higher than I expected.

One point not yet mentioned in this thread is the fact that the containment of Iraq (which Al Gore recently plugged, absurdly) was rapidly unravelling before the war began. The French and Russians likely were violating it, and were pushing, as permanent UNSC members, to do away with it. Maintaining the status quo regarding Iraq was simply not an option, 9/11 or no.

The presence of actual WMDs in Iraq appears to have been oversold, mostly because of the need to make the case within the legal framework of the UN, where merely being a savage dictator is not quite enough to indict. But there can be no doubt about Saddam's intentions post-sanctions. He was playing a waiting game which he would have won had we not changed the rules to our and Iraqis' favor. In retrospect, it seems the biggest mistake made with regards to Iraq occured in '91.

also don't forget that being a general doesn't mean you will always be right.

look at the number of Union generals that Lincoln had to go through before he found Grant who's grand stratagy was the same as his.

also remember the election of 1864 (which we seem to be reliving today) The democratic candidate was George McClellan. Not only was he an authentic hero of the mexician war but a Very experienced general who even Lee has called the ablest general he faced in the war (see Foote vol I of the civil war)

does anyone seriously believe that the country would have been better off in the experienced soldier won?

And one thing more. The chickenhawk argument is at base, undemocratic. I have not served in the military and have no family members currently serving. I wonder if Sisyphus would suggest that my vote for George Bush (or whoever) should not count quite as much as if I did serve or had family members currently serving. Maybe we ought to go back to some sort of poll test. Or I could get 3/5ths of a vote. Or insert reference to "Starship Troopers" here. And note that we judge the civilian control of the military to be good thing. Policy is set by the people in this country, not just the military. The fact that some on the left argue otherwise is a demonstration of their opportunism and desperation, and definitely not of their integrity.

On another level, this war started here in the US and civilians were on the front lines from the beginning. There is more than one front in this war. I don't know if Mark Bingham or Todd Beamer were in the military, but I do know that any of us could find ourselves in their situation, regardless of our military status. Had they survived, it would be less easy to say that the weight given to their opinion on US policy depended on their military service, wouldn't it?

I agree with just about every volley lobbed at Sisyphus and would like to add that when only the opinions of soldiers are valid on matters of Peace ( a period of cheating between two periods of fighting) then you have taken a very large step towards actual Fascism as opposed to the phony fascism the US/UK is so fashionalbly accused of by the shrill bottom-of-the-barrel left. I also can't help but notice that Sisyphus has yet to respond to any of these, uh, responses. On another note, anyone out there ever listen to the John Bachelor program on WABC radio?

Andrea - Right. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, my bad, but the sentiments still applies including them.

Sissy-pus - I severed in the USMC, i have relatives that have served in the Military, including presently friends and relatives in the US Army, USMC and the IDF. Or in other words, STFU.

Oh and the idea that Clarke and Zinn think the war is a bad idea? Laughable - look at what General Ripper said BEFORE the war (100% for it) and take a look at what Zinn did in the Bush Administration. He did such a poor job he was shuffled off to some administrative job, thus his change of attitude about the administration and the war. What next? Gonna tell us how Howard (Screaming) Dean's General Hoar is against the war to? Dope.

I remain a hawk even tho it has become more and more difficult to talk from this position in public, The antis are definately very vocal and quick to attack pro-war people. But I find that there are actually more people who support the war than oppose it. The biggest point of contention is that Bush appears to have backed off for political reasons. Many, like myself, think we should just turn the military loose to do its job.

As regards the Sarin Gas; one point not noted in this thread thus far. Even Kay and Blitz agree that Saddam's stockpiles of Sarin were unstable and would simply lose their effectiveness over time. The gas found was full strength and thus of recent manufacture.

Civillians will most probably never know the war plans and intel behind this war. There may very well be good solid reasons for backing off the military. It comes down to belief. I still believe in Bush. This belief is not without numerous doubts but it remains firm nonetheless. For the Bush-haters, nothing he does or says will satisfy their blood lust for his defeat and humniiation - and they will be satisfied with nothing less. As with the Clinton-haters, these people care only for their own narrow objectives and would gladly sacrifice anyone and anything to achive them.

Iraq is important for many reasons, not the least of which is its strateglic position in the ME. It puts serious pressure on all its neighbors to modernize if Iraq succeeds as a free country. No Arab country can justify its tyranny of its own people if Iraq is seen to flourish and prosper under a secular and democratic government. Iraq is not going to be a mirror of US democracy, it will have to be an Iraqi version to succed - like Japan after WW2.

Sisyphus: I totally support the war. So do both of my children, one a CG Academy Graduate, a LTJG, an my daughter an Army PFC, who has spent the last 14 months in Iraq. She in particular says "Stay the course, we are winning, both militarily and politically." She sees the kindnesses of the Iraqi people, and their happines that we are there, as well as thier hopes for a democracy.

The US faces what Steve Sailer calls the Clash problem in Iraq:Should we stay or should we go?

If we go there will be trouble.

An'if we stay it will be double.

The chief cost of the war is the disablement of the US Army as an instrument of rogue state containment and terror control.

The thing that Steyn forgets is that civil war, regional intervention and fundamental terrorism has not erupted in Iraq because of the presence of 130,000 US troops. They can't stay there forever and when they leave all hell will break loose.

So if they stay the US Army will be damaged in its major role of keeping world order and waging the war on terrorism.

If they go then the Iraqi army will not be able to maintain order and terrorists, sectarians or regional enemies will take over Iraq.

This looks like "check" in chess, which leads me to suspect that Iran might be behind the WMD hoax.

So somebody carpet bombs the remarks with the "chickenhawk" comment and everyone gets their undies in a bunch. Couple of points:
1) I am in fact a veteran.
2) It's just projection from the lefties; they as almost a golden rule, didn't serve.
3) There has been a lot of invalid indirection going on. Why do people insist that the war is about WMDs? Because they can't win the real argument. The war is about draining the swamp. It's _NEVER_ been about WMD. The swamp needs draining. 5000 dead in NYC, the Cole, the embassies, Leon Klinghofer, Lockerbee, etc. 20 years of watching the gators kill. Time to drain the swamp. That _IS_ the point. Not only am I still for the war, I think it's almost time for part 3. Saudi Arabia or Syria. Pick one. Iran will fall on their own.

I'm under the opinion that Bush and Co need to get a set and get on with it. Let the idiotarians debate themselves to death.

"The chief cost of the war is the disablement of the US Army as an instrument of rogue state containment and terror control.

What does this mean? In what fashion has the US military been "disabled"? Because you are upset? Or do you just assume that the US military is broken because you don't agree with the Iraq invasion, and want to point out the lost cause there? That being your theme in other posts.

"The thing that Steyn forgets is that civil war, regional intervention and fundamental terrorism has not erupted in Iraq because of the presence of 130,000 US troops. They can't stay there forever and when they leave all hell will break loose."

This is a possibility. No one likes it, but I won't argue it can't happen. But why do you think we are training soldiers and policemen in Iraq? Why is the Coalition working to develop a working government of Iraqis? Why the soldiers are killing shitloads of terrorists whenever they are stupid enough to charge Bradley Fighting Vehicles with an AK47? To improve the odds in their favor! D'oh!

Alternatively, if we had not invaded Iraq, war in the middle east would be inevitable. And please do not tell say that I don't know that. You yourself said "regional intervention" in your post. What you could have said was "invaded by a neighboring state". You agree to the possibility.

"This looks like "check" in chess, which leads me to suspect that Iran might be behind the WMD hoax."

"Check" in chess means your king is threatened. "Checkmate" means the king is captured, no way out. So you admit that all is not lost, eh? There's a way, huh? Things are not hopeless.

Oh, and what WMD hoax, by the way? It's not conclusively proven that there are WMDs, but it hasn't been disproven either. Try not to be overtly biased, would you?

Jack, once again you argue by stating your conclusion (that we are in deep trouble by invading Iraq), and feeding us "facts" that support your conclusion. Plus you make things sound so hopeless that we might as well do nothing at all. When exactly the opposite is the truth.

I usually know better than to predict anything, especially on such a searchable media as the internet, but here goes.

The US military isn't going anywhere. There is no "exit strategy", and boo to those who are calling for one (more so if you also demand a time table).

The Kurds won't want us to go. They've already set themselves up a decent society under explicit US/UK protection. They're used to that umbrella. They won't trust their crazy Arab neighbors to the south to maintain the same level of respect for their society.

The Sunnis want us out but will fear Shiite revenge for the last 35 years of life under Sunni thugs. A Sunni minority will think they'd get the upper hand again post-US, but they won't convince most Sunnis that this is viable. Plus there's Shiite Iran to worry about.

The Shiites also want us out but fear Sunni resurgence. This isn't merely an intra-Iraq affair. Sunni extremists from KSA would (and have) come to the aid of Iraqi Sunnis before. Sunnis in KSA and Iraq see it as their Sunni Muslim duty to keep Shiites in KSA and Iraq down. The Shiite majority in Iraq will accept the US military as a permanent presence in Iraq as a necessary insurance policy.

Why'd we stay in Germany for 60 years after the Nazi's defeat? To keep the Russians out and the Germans down. In Iraq, the situation is more complicated internally, but there are equally compelling reasons for all players to want us to stay.

As for our own reasons to stay: it's in our interest for Iraq to succeed, to which our continued (remote) presence would contribute, and to maintain major bases on the borders of Syria, KSA, and Iran (the next rogue states on my personal hit list). And that's where we should base, on the borders and in the port, not in any major city.

My problem isn't so much why some hawks have become doves. It's more that, given the level of the vile terrorist attacks, why aren't doves becoming hawks?
We have the regrettable situation where Latham wants to pull our troops out just when they're needed--even if you were a UNophile.
To be a dove means abandoning the Iraqi people once again to the worst case scenario.

"...Nothing is more important than to try to understand how this catastrophe occurred."

What a catastrophe! We've lost about 1200 men (bless them all) taking over two countries in two years. About the same as we lost in the first two hours of D-Day trying to establish a hundred yard beach head.

Jack, once again you argue by stating your conclusion ... and feeding us "facts" that support your conclusion.

Jack doesn't ALWAYS do that. Sometimes he just says stupid shit like "it's a shame the Right doesn't support the war as much as the Left" and then he veers off into totally unfounded speculations on how Bush is stupid and evil. And then he shouts at you. It is a rare case indeed where the Man of Ineffable Causistry actually provides "facts" that are related to his "conclusions"

Anyway, regarding the whole chickenhawk arguement; I propose that no one has the right to defend the military from chickenhawks or to speak on the behalf of soldiers unless they actually serve themselves. That will leave about three people to do all the complaining, the "unstoppable" "KerryClarkZinni" "juggernaut". They're right because they served! Which is why all their current fans voted for Bob Dole in 1996! [/cognitive dissonance]

The "old Jack" was belligerent and nasty on account of his felt need to lash out at the fools and knaves who led us into this war. He now realises that he was not without sin and had not right to cast stones.

So he has hung up his gloves. In line with his new-found dovishness he is committed to a policy of peaceful co-existence with the commentators to this site.

The "new Jack" is willing to talk the language of sweet reason. Both because this is right initself and the best way to bring over others to his point of view.

In the military, we called putting up with a lot of whiny petty arguments was called "dealing with chickenshit". Don't the arguments coming from the pro-saddam element (Glenn's on the other side argument) seem this way with the goalpost moving, "imminent disaster and quagmire of the week.

I have and continue to support the war 100%. Further, I supported it when President Clinton (whom I voted for twice), Vice President Gore, and Secretaries Cohen and Albright proposed it and passed it into law in 1998.

I had misgivings about not routing Saddam in '91 but I bought into that Bush Administration's argument about lacking a UN mandate. Many friends who served then agreed that "we'll have to return there someday" and they were right.

In the liberation of Kuwait, the doom and gloom crowd said we'd suffer enormous casualties, be bogged down indefinitely, etc. In short, I thought I had time to enlist. I was 28. My fiance (now wife) begged me to wait six months before I enlisted so I did. The war was over way quicker so I continued on with my studies instead.

On September 11, 2001, I looked into joining again but learned the cut off age was 34. I was then 38. Had I served earlier, I was told, I could've gotten into the Reserves. I am married with three children and teaching high school but I would have gone gladly. The recruiter said there were a lot of us older guys wanting to join but she couldn't help us.

(I definitely got the feeling from her that she thought we were cute and pathetic "old" patriots.)

I have ancestors that have fought in every major and many minor American conflicts since the Prince Phillip Indian Wars in 17th century New England. My father is classified as a "Vietnam Era" veteran despite his Army unit not being sent overseas.

I have friends and relatives in Iraq and Afghanistan and I also have former students that I worry about constantly. Further, I almost lost my brother and brother-in-law at the WTC so I take that day very personally. A friend's brother was killed on Flight 93.

And that one single Sarin shell, in an enclosed space such as a hockey rink or domed football stadium could kill up to 70,000 people.

I've never ever voted for a Republican president before but I will in 2004. I'm embarassed by my former party. Go get 'em, President Bush!

Until very recently, while women could join the military they were not allowed to participate in combat or other hazardous missions. Thus if you're female and older than, say, 40, you're a chickenhawk by definition.

Yes, Floyd. As if "women over 40" were never expected to sacrifice anything in wartime --- like, say, a father, or a husband, or God forbid, a son.

The Real Jeff S thinks I have made a frivolous case in regards to the perverse effects of GW II. He complains that I made the claim that

the US military been "disabled"? Because [I was] upset?

The Real Jeff S is correct to affirm that I was upset with the way that regime change has proceeded. My theis is that the US admins handling of regime change was as bad in the civil phase it was good at the military phase - which is alot in both cases. The US army is now called on to repair the damage inficted by their civilian masters. This is bad enough.

It gets worse, much worse.

This adventure has harmed the US military's efficacy, helped the recruitment of jihadists, and taken the military pressure off real rogue states with actual WMDs.

It looks like regime change in Iraq has increased the chances of that which it claimed to stop: fundamentalist terrorist propagation and rogue state WMD proliferation. Whilst reducing the efficacy of the US Army, the Free World's best tool to constrain such nuisances.

Meanwhile, the Ayatollahs of Iran appear to be gloating over their good fortune in setting up a con-man to sting the US into getting rid of their worst enemy, free of charge, whilst costing the US plenty.Chalabi's Long, Costly Charade

Are those the same guys in Iran who are sweating over the possibility of a Bush re-election? You know, the ones who tricked us into moving our army next door? Clever fools.

Was there a country that we invaded where we didn't, um, rout the opposition in an amazingly short amount of time? Is that why the military has lost its "efficacy"? Are we out of tanks and bombs and troops or something?

Is the reason that leaders of the Arab world are getting together and making noises about reform and democracy because they know that we have no ability to storm in and do it for them anymore?

Did al-Sadr just get his tail whipped by his fellow Iraqis because we ignorantly and foolishly let them take care of him on their own in their own way, when we should have just levelled Falluja?

Did Libya not disarm because of a concentrated international intelligence effort and pressure from the Bush administration, the one that was so busy missing out on WMD proliferation with its crazy cowboy adventures?

Is Kim il-Jong rooting for Kerry and using his state propoganda machine to talk him up in North Korea because he wants to be caught and Bush isn't doing enough to pressure him?

Your thesis is wrong Jack, no matter how much you pile under it after the fact.

Initially, I was not very sure that taking out Saddam by invading Iraq was the best way to go. Special Ops would have been preferrable, but it would have menat more than taking out just Saddam (sons, and about 60% of the 'Deck of Cards'), and it might have been too much of a job to take on.

That Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons, trying to develop super-long artillery capable of firing gas and bio agents, was very well known, even in the 1980's. So, all in all, once the decision was made to go, I have supported the effort to fight terrorism in this way, from that time on. It is the first death knell of a nation to not support a war effort when a President decides we must go, and the reasons were adequate. The more the common Arab believes the US is unwilling on unable to follow through on a threat, such as, "... lay down your arms in 48 hours or...," then we must work twice as hard to convince them. And convincing can be very painful and costly in lives.

Family background for the military include ancestors fighting in the French and Indian War of the 1760's, Revolutionary War, war with Mexico, Civil War (both sides), Spanish American, grandfather tracked Pancho Villa in Mexico with Pershing, was gassed by mustard gas (yes, as found in the shell but isn't considered a WMD, although it killed over 100,000 in WWI), father and uncle in WWII, my brother and in in Vietnam.

The invaison of Iraq was right when it commenced and it is still right.

If one looks at the real facts and not the rubbish published by the media, it is quite clear that the US and its allies have done extremely well in Iraq.

The real problem is that the media is full of the real the kind of idiots and villains who would rather do their best to ensure that more troops and Iraqi civilians are killed, just to do down President Bush.

I find it very difficult to inderstand the animus that the psuedo-intellectuals of the left bear president Bush. Is it because he uses terms such as "good" and "evil?" Is it because he has been correct on every issue so far? Is it because the lefties are not interested in facts but only in feelings? Are they are distraught at the fact that they aren't getting the glory of winning the war against terrrorism? Or are they just stupid? I think it's the latter. You see I have never read any anti-war argument that is intellectually sound in any sense.

I've heard anti-war arguements that are "intellectually" sound, but they rely on ideas like "Saddam was not enough of a threat to us to warrant this action". That's not based on falsehoods, and it's not stupid. I do find it to be callous and immoral, however.

And unpragmatic, given that this attitude of allowing others to suffer because it is not our business and the world's policy of enforcing stability at the cost of freedom has given us terrorism as we now know it.

At any rate, I agree with your conclusions, toryhere, but basically what I'm hearing from you to support that conclusion is the same sort of arguement I hear out of the anti-war trolls. "We're right, you're stupid, and anyone who looks at the real facts knows it" isn't very inspiring.

Andrea you really are a piece of work. Tim asked for comments about when people disagreed with the war. Jack makes an substantial comment on that topic which didn't rely on insults or profanity to make its point...and you ban him for it? Where do you get off?

Jack: Well done - I didn't agree with everything but it was a great post. You have added more content than most of these groupthink conservatives.

Andrea, did you just ban Jack? I see nothing wrong with that last post of his. No swearing or name calling. He was asked to back up his earlier assertions and he did. Please tell me you didn't just ban him.

"Are those the same guys in Iran who are sweating over the possibility of a Bush re-election? You know, the ones who tricked us into moving our army next door? Clever fools."

No Sortelli, they're the guys in Iran who may very well have pulled off one of the all-time masterful intelligence operations. Imagine: you've got two enemies, one which killed hundreds of thousands of your people in a long, bloody, pointless war. The other, the most powerful military force the world has ever known. You con the powerful one into invading the other one and sit back and laugh as one enemy is wiped out and the other becomes bogged down for years to come. Clever fools, indeed!

"Was there a country that we invaded where we didn't, um, rout the opposition in an amazingly short amount of time? Is that why the military has lost its "efficacy"? Are we out of tanks and bombs and troops or something?"

Ever heard of Vietnam? What about the Germans in Europe? They took a while to root out. The military has lost its efficacy because after this mess in Iraq is sorted out the US public will be extremely reluctant to back any future overseas missions. An army, no matter how large, no matter how well trained or armed, has bugger all efficacy if there's no will power to use it.

"Is the reason that leaders of the Arab world are getting together and making noises about reform and democracy because they know that we have no ability to storm in and do it for them anymore?"

There is no ability to storm in when the US Army is bogged down in Iraq.

"Did al-Sadr just get his tail whipped by his fellow Iraqis because we ignorantly and foolishly let them take care of him on their own in their own way, when we should have just levelled Falluja?"

Tail whipped? We watching the same set of events? Sadr got a ceasefire in which his army remained intact, US forces left the city, and Iraqis moved in. Some tail whipping. That said, it was probably the sensible thing to do given the situation.

"Did Libya not disarm because of a concentrated international intelligence effort and pressure from the Bush administration, the one that was so busy missing out on WMD proliferation with its crazy cowboy adventures?

No. Libya has been trying to get on the good side of the US and its allies for nearly a decade. It actually offered to turn over its entire nuke program to the Clinton administration, but they believed it was not at a significant stage of development, and preferred instead to get Libyan cooperation on bringing the Lockerbie bombers to justice. Stupid call on the part of the Clintonites, IMO, but Libya giving up its nuke program had little to do with Bush policies.

"Is Kim il-Jong rooting for Kerry and using his state propoganda machine to talk him up in North Korea because he wants to be caught and Bush isn't doing enough to pressure him?'

As an English teacher and all-round pain in the arse, I'm here to tell you that weak and week are homophones, but they aren't homonyms. And if you don't like homonyms, why then you are homophobic.

Hey, gang, if you go back a bit that guy Doug called for the bombing of Mecca, Messina and Al Aqsa. I don't want you to get the idea that I'm some sort of pinko, but does that not strike you as a bit excessive?

Jack S. has pulled this crap before. He posts a thesis, then piles facts and semi-relevant to non-relevant links on it wthout any analysis or attempt to even point out pertinent facts. You are expected to plow through web sites to see how he is right. When someone does do that, 90% of the time it turns out that Jack is chosing and picking only facts that supports his thesis, and ignoring others. When we disagree, he gets belligerant. Old news, y'know?

As for Iran being all-time scam artists....so what? Iraq needed cleaning up. *If* Iran manipulated the US, it could very well backfire on them, either by the success of a rebuilt Iraq at least moderately friendly to the west, or by the creation of a bunch of Shi'ite Arabs pissed at a bunch of Persians for their interference. More tribal warfare, hmmmm? There are more risks than gains in the scam scenario, which is why I doubt it is true.

On Najaf.....since the ceasefire was negotiated in part by Iraqis, I don't consider it a defeat, but a sure sign of the healing of Iraq, similar to Fallujah. They are starting to stand on their own. Please note that the Muslim world did not howl with outrage when infidel troops (i.e., American) actually entered the city to directly engage al Sadr forces. No, it's not a complete military victory. But guess what! The military campaign is not the priority, rebuilding the country is.

North Korea....have you ever looked at how Kim il-Jong runs that nation? I'd guess not. It's a despotic regime, operated only for the benefit of a small elite ruling class. Any vestige of communism went out the windows decades ago. North Korea is spending it's capital simply to maintain the fiction that they are a key player. Even Russia won't support them anymore. China is more concerned about keeping the US of out NoKo than supporting a "fellow communist nation". South Korea wants reunification....on their terms. The only threat NoKo poses is that they have a large army of brainwashed zealots who could create genuine havoc if cut loose....or they could possibly nuke one of their neighbors, if they get their act together. In any case, invading NoKo is the least preferred option; they've been using that scenario to keep their workers in line since 1956. Letting NoKo collapse economically is far better. Look at the Soviet Union. Kim il-Jong knows this....and wants someone in the White House who lives for appeasement. That is, Kerry.

As for:

"Ever heard of Vietnam? What about the Germans in Europe? They took a while to root out. The military has lost its efficacy because after this mess in Iraq is sorted out the US public will be extremely reluctant to back any future overseas missions. An army, no matter how large, no matter how well trained or armed, has bugger all efficacy if there's no will power to use it."

First of all, this is not Vietnam. Second, the US forces stayed in Europe because of the Soviet threat; I was stationed near the East German border as a lieutenant, I don't recall "rooting" the Germans out, except for dates. Third, half of this war is for the hearts and minds of the American people....largely thanks to folks like you who use specious anti-war arguments and rhetoric rather than acknowledge that we are on the tiger, and the best bet is to finish the ride.

You know, in retrospect, my post wasn't carefully constructed because it was a response to Jack Strocchi, who isn't much for serious conversation. But if this is the best fisking I get, I feel vindicated.

1) We have the capability to swarm into Iran on a moment's notice if we wanted. The only thing that would stand in front of that is politics, and the mullahs know that suddenly, politics don't seem to work so well at staving off US invasion.

Not to mention that our mere presence at the border stirs democratic unrest in Iran. If you really think that this whole thing was an Iranian plot, then I'm sorry and I hope the tumor is begin.

2) Vietnam? Strocchi says the war in Iraq made our military less effective, I say that we've been extremely effective in the current conflicts, and to counter this you bring up VIETNAM????

Hey everyone! We lost in Vietnam because of the Iraq war. YOU HEARD IT HERE.

Oh, yeah, and Germany was pretty tough too, guys! Man, we like, lost more soldiers in a day at Normandy than in the "record setting" casualties of the Iraqi occupation. Those Germans were hella tough. Makes you wonder why we got involved, when we should have been attacking Japan and only Japan.

3) And yet despite the "fact" that we are bogged down in Iraq, the Arab League is still reluctantly playing at reform. It's curious, isn't it? Did they not get the memo from the geniuses in Iran?

4) "Tail whipped? We watching the same set of events? Sadr got a ceasefire in which his army remained intact, US forces left the city, and Iraqis moved in. Some tail whipping. That said, it was probably the sensible thing to do given the situation."

OMG WTF BUSH IS STUPID EVIL GENIUS PLAYED INTO HANDS OF IRANIANS AGAIN

Al-Sadr lost. He gained no popular support. Muslims turned against him instead of rallying to his banner, despite how being in Iraq makes all muslims want to be our enemy.

It's too bad we're so bogged down and uneffective that we can't do sensible things like this. If things like this keep happening, that massive Iranian plot I keep hearing about is going to backfire big time because we won't be tied up peace-keeping in Iraq.

5) Libya was trying to play nice for a long time and we've had diplomatic pressure on them from a long time. It started long before Bush, but he's done his share to keep that pressure on. Right before Libya folded one of their WMD shipments was caught in a international non-proliferation operation by a German ship (you know, the guys that won't work with us anymore because of Bush). Oh, yeah, and Saddam got hauled out of a spider hole too. I'm trying to google up the source but it eludes me for now. When I find it I will post it.

At any rate, the fact that Libya has disarmed refutes Jack's bonehead assertion that we're missing the real WMD proliferation while we're "distracted" in Iraq. Which is why I brought it up.

If you're trying to just argue that Bush can't take all the credit for Libya, then I weep for the strawman you just knocked over.

6) No. Didn't you hear that Kerry's got support from foreign leaders? Even those incredible geniuses from Iran seem to prefer the idea of dealing with Kerry to dealing with Bush.

Hey, gang, if you go back a bit that guy Doug called for the bombing of Mecca, Messina and Al Aqsa. I don't want you to get the idea that I'm some sort of pinko, but does that not strike you as a bit excessive?

I was anti-appeasement, still am anti-appeasement, but only if the army is allowed to fight without having its hands tied. I am unhappy about the political interference in the way the army does its job, specifically the failure to level Falluja. While the US is busy trying to get the arabs to like them by being nice, they need to think about the message of weakness that sends to the rest of the arab world. I believe that sending a message that you are strong, angry, and a little bit crazy would be far more effective in persuading the arab world to the American point of view than the excessive niceness shown. I am not at all upset by the Abu Ghraib hazing, only by the grovelling apology given by President Bush. Terrorists need to know that they will be humiliated by SMALL UNVEILED INFIDEL WOMEN if caught.

Did being nice to France and Germany make the old Europeans like the USA? Did attempts at appeasement of muslims work for Israel, India, Russia? No, it brought them even worse slaughter. Sure, combine an iron fist with a velvet glove to the areas that are being co-operative, and allow them to see that the Americans are capable of a little patience. But I expect heavy whammo when they push that patience too far as we saw in Falluja. We are fighting a war not a battle.

Incidentally:
chickenhawk, n. - one who supports a war despite not serving in armed forces.

chickenbaby, n. - one who takes advantage of democratic rights to whine about the military despite never having served in the armed forces to defend those rights.

A late pile on I suppose, but I'd like to make sure that the implication that things are going POORLY is not left unchallenged. By any measure the war in Iraq is going extremely well. Civilian casualties are amazingly low. Friendly troop casualties (deaths and injuries both) are amazingly low. Infrastructure rebuilding and societal rebuilding are both doing very well also.

The only theater we are not playing well in is the information war. The positive progress needs to be far more widely distributed and MUCH more aggressively. That's a job at which the DoD is not particularly good (or appropriate for)and where State should be stepping in.

But Iraq hasn't been turned into a combination of California, Elfland, and Paradise overnight, soldiers still occasionally get killed when hit by bullets, the Arab Street hasn't cut a record yet, gas in Des Moines isn't two cents a gallon -- so the war is a failure.

Oh, and for the Association of Concerned Liberal Mommies of Poor Widdle Jack here: I banned him for taking the first opportunity to get up to his old tricks (the tedious, argumentative, my-voice-should-drown-out-all-others post full of bullet points in bold links to other websites which we are supposed to all go read like obedient children and then come back to post hosannas to Jack's wisdom and mea culpas for ever doubting it) when I showed to slightest inclination to be lenient. He's done this before, gentlemen -- this isn't his first offence. And he has his OWN BLOG to post on. It's just that he doesn't have as big an audience there.

And I'm sure he'll be back when he figures out how to log on with another IP address. Thanks for puffing up his already huge ego; now I'll have to go on Jack alert.

Just suppose that your hypothesis on Iranian involvement in Iraq is correct: that it is a brilliant masterstroke of intelligence.

That yields a few problematic results. One is that the US can now stage anything from small raids to a full-scale invasion for years and years to come. Additionally, this will make it exponentially easier to infiltrate assets across the border. The new map means that they are all but surrounded by American troops (with the exception of Armenia and Tajikistan).

If the plan is to keep the US tied up indefinitely, then they've got problems insofar is that they're now in a position to get their fingers burned but royal if there is too strong a trail leading backwards.

Other unexpected results for Tehran include the outing of their nuclear program by insurgent groups and large amounts of unrest.

All said and done, even if it was intentional, it is incredibly high risk strategy informed more by a sense of desperation than out of some sort of evil overlord machination.

You seem to think that having troops next door to Iran is some tactical masterstroke on the part of the US military, or some blunder on the part of the Iranians. Sure, they could pull up stumps and march into Iran, and they'd give the Iranian army a damn good pasting. There's nothing militarily that is stopping them. Politically on the other hand there is heaps stopping them. For a start Iraq would fall in a pile. That's politically unnacceptable. Second there would be little support at home for such a mission after such a mess was made of Iraq. Upshot: the US is stuck in an occupation that will likely drag on for several years and that it can not easily walk away from. If the Iranians did trick the US into invading it's easily one of the all time great intelligence operations.

Sortelli,

"We lost in Vietnam because of the Iraq war?" Where the hell did I say or imply that? You asked for an example of a country that the US had gone to war with that had NOT been routed within a short time. I gave you two examples. Vietnam and Germany. Maybe you need to read what I wrote a little more carefully.

Yes there is something of a reform movement in some Arab countries. But it doesn't strike me as a particularly serious one. The one in Iran has been building long before Bush came to power and Iraq was invaded. As for the others you got proof that invading Iraq caused those reform attempts?

Al Sadr is still alive and his army is still intact. Whether or not his popularity is up or down is irrelevant. You claimed he got his tail whipped, which is clearly an overstatement. I called you on it.

You seemed, from my reading of your post, to be claiming Bush gets all the credit for Libya handing over WMD. If you were not, and think they only deserve *some* of the credit, then we probably agree here to some extent.

"I banned him for taking the first opportunity to get up to his old tricks (the tedious, argumentative, my-voice-should-drown-out-all-others post full of bullet points in bold links to other websites which we are supposed to all go read like obedient children and then come back to post hosannas to Jack's wisdom and mea culpas for ever doubting it"

Andrea, that has got to be the most piss-weak reason I've ever heard for banning someone. You don't have to go read every link "like obedient children". Stop being such a drama queen. If you can't handle opinions other than your own, just say so. We'll at least respect you for your honesty.

"Terrorists need to know that they will be humiliated by SMALL UNVEILED INFIDEL WOMEN if caught." -Clem Snide.

Unfortunately Clem we can't be sure it was just terrorists who got that treatment. Judging from the hundreds released from Abu Ghraib in recent weeks there seems to have been a lot of innocent people held captive. How many of them got the treatment too, and now go back to their homes with stories of what happened to them? There's more to this war than just blowing the crap out of terrorists, there's a battle for hearts and minds too. The torture in Abu Ghraib makes that battle much harder to win.

Stewart, when you have been named King of the Goddamned Internet, let me know. Until then, banning Jack Strocchi and the other mass of 'tards that seem to think they can come here and take lengthy shits will continue. In fact, it will continue anyway. But I'll be sure to send you an email letting you know who I've banned next, since you are so concerned.

Stewart, I'm just going to repeat the context of your Vietnam comparison again.

Jack said the Iraq war made our military less effective. To support this he to stories about recruitment issues in the Iraqi and US military. Dropping a mention to the Iraqi army has nothing to do with our own, and there are reports that contradict the latter.

I asked if there was a country our military didn't paste, and if our military was somehow weaker or lacking in material and troops now.

You mentioned Vietnam. As a response to a general question about "is there a war we didn't win", that would be relevant. That's not what I was talking about though.

Al Sadr is still alive and his army is still intact. Whether or not his popularity is up or down is irrelevant. You claimed he got his tail whipped, which is clearly an overstatement. I called you on it.

Wrong. His popularity is extremely relevant. In fact, it is the most important thing. Despite our evil-unilateralist-cowboy-oil-stealing-non-soft-power-using-duped-by-the-Iranians foreign policy, Al-Sadr could not engineer a popular revolution. Rather than side with him, muslims turned on him. They are infuriated that he used their holy places as a shield. In this conflict, that is a huge loss. The worst backlash from this is that it disppoints hawkish folks who wanted us to nuke Falluja or something, so they went over to cry with the doves that the war is going terribly. I can deal with al Sadr being marginalized instead of killed. In fact, I think it is the better result.

And as for Jack, he's been banned before and he should stay banned. He's full of shit, and he only pretends to make arguements and presents links that are only rarely on topic, if at all, and even then they are hardly relevant. Given his history, he's not someone to be crying over.

No Sortelli, they're the guys in Iran who may very well have pulled off one of the all-time masterful intelligence operations. Imagine: you've got two enemies, one which killed hundreds of thousands of your people in a long, bloody, pointless war. The other, the most powerful military force the world has ever known. You con the powerful one into invading the other one and sit back and laugh as one enemy is wiped out and the other becomes bogged down for years to come. Clever fools, indeed!

Of course, if Iraq adopts a constitution, if Sadr is thrown under the bus by fellow Shiite's, if there is no popular uprising or civil war despite the best efforts of Iranian and Al Quaida agitators and if Iranian travelers to heretofore inaccessable Holy sites in a newly freed Iraq can buy newspapers and speak their minds and demonstrate their beliefs and then go home and compare that to the hell hole existance the mullahcracy has foisted upon them, they may wind up being too clever by half. Especially since there would now be 130,000 troops of the Great Satan, many of them just choc-a-block full of efficacy, next door further destabilizing their already shaky grasp of power.

Ever heard of Vietnam? What about the Germans in Europe? They took a while to root out. The military has lost its efficacy because after this mess in Iraq is sorted out the US public will be extremely reluctant to back any future overseas missions. An army, no matter how large, no matter how well trained or armed, has bugger all efficacy if there's no will power to use it.

Vietnam was a failure of political will, the loss of efficacy that you are so concerned about, that was fostered by the likes of John Kerry in the 60s and 70s and John Strocchi today. And the methods are the same; use a sympathetic media to paint every development as a failure (Tet) and every motive as sinister to weaken the will of the home folk.

As for Germany, you are right--it took the allies a year to throw the wehrmacht out of Europe after D-Day. You get five debating points. But you had to know that Sortelli was talking about more contemporary events. Didn't you?

There is no ability to storm in when the US Army is bogged down in Iraq.

I'm sorry, but I missed your credentials. How is it that you are able to assess the current "quagmire" and determine with such confidence US tactical capabilities? I was raised on military bases, been steeped in military culture and history and all I can say is that I haven't a clue as to what is the ultimate ability of the US military to project power. I think the world, including the US military, are redefining those capabilities on a daily basis. But hey, thanks for your considered insight.

Tail whipped? We watching the same set of events? Sadr got a ceasefire in which his army remained intact, US forces left the city, and Iraqis moved in. Some tail whipping. That said, it was probably the sensible thing to do given the situation.

Uh, yeah, tail whipped. As in worst case scenario for Sadr. His uprising didn't happen. He's a pariah amoung his own people. His fighters have to watch over their shoulders lest they be "disappeared" by the locals who are sick of their grandstanding and mosque desecrations. And he doesn't dare show his face to his Iranian masters because he screwed up their clever "master plan." I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, would you?

As one of those that called for a more forceful dealing to al-Sadr I give Kudos to the adminstration for its deft handling of the issue. I'm suprised that you don't recognize the subtle nuance of it all, given your level of military experetise.

No. Libya has been trying to get on the good side of the US and its allies for nearly a decade. It actually offered to turn over its entire nuke program to the Clinton administration, but they believed it was not at a significant stage of development, and preferred instead to get Libyan cooperation on bringing the Lockerbie bombers to justice. Stupid call on the part of the Clintonites, IMO, but Libya giving up its nuke program had little to do with Bush policies.

Sorry, but I'll have to see a link before I believe that (a) the Clinton Administration was that criminally, epically, negligent and that (b) it was a coincidence that this was achieved a few weeks after Sadam was flushed from his spider hole.

Stewart (and Jack), I think your assumption that we would have been able to invade Iran or North Korea without an adequate Casus Belli if we hadn't invaded Iraq is very weak. Same with your assumption that we wouldn't do so if we had one now.

Sortelli, you quite clearly asked whether or not there was a country that the US did not rout in a short period of time. You may have asked other things as well but its pretty clear that when I brought up the issue of Vietnam and Germany I was referring to them as countries that the US was not quick to rout. You also said "Hey everyone! We lost in Vietnam because of the Iraq war. YOU HEARD IT HERE." Which seems to be your summary of my argument. WTF? How could we lose a war more than thirty years ago because of stuff happening now? You seriously think I claimed or implied this? If so please indicate where.

As for Al Sadr, yes his popularity is relevant to what is happening in Iraq. It was not relevant to our argument though. You claimed he got his 'tail whipped' which he quite clearly didn't. Whether or not his popularity went up or down is not really relevant to whether or not he got his tail whipped. His army is intact, he's alive, the enemy he was fighting withdrew under the conditions of a ceasefire (though it looks like it might not be holding). That doesn't meet any reasonable definition of 'tail whipping' that I'm aware of.

I'll concede to you on the issue of Kim Il-Jong saying he supports Kerry, though why any of us should care about the opinion of that sado-freak I don't really know.

"Of course, if Iraq adopts a constitution, if Sadr is thrown under the bus by fellow Shiite's, if there is no popular uprising or civil war despite the best efforts of Iranian and Al Quaida agitators and if Iranian travelers to heretofore inaccessable Holy sites in a newly freed Iraq can buy newspapers and speak their minds and demonstrate their beliefs and then go home and compare that to the hell hole existance the mullahcracy has foisted upon them, they may wind up being too clever by half. Especially since there would now be 130,000 troops of the Great Satan, many of them just choc-a-block full of efficacy, next door further destabilizing their already shaky grasp of power."

Thats a whole lot of bloody 'if's' and while I don't deny the possibility of all turning out well in Iraq (or some reasonable approximation of well) the Bush general admins incompetence and the state of the security situation (among other things) makes it look unlikely IMO. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

"Vietnam was a failure of political will, the loss of efficacy that you are so concerned about, that was fostered by the likes of John Kerry in the 60s and 70s and John Strocchi today. And the methods are the same; use a sympathetic media to paint every development as a failure (Tet) and every motive as sinister to weaken the will of the home folk.

As for Germany, you are right--it took the allies a year to throw the wehrmacht out of Europe after D-Day. You get five debating points. But you had to know that Sortelli was talking about more contemporary events. Didn't you?"

It was quite clear that my bringing up Vietnam and Germany was in reference to Sortelli's asking if there was ever a war where the US had not routed its enemy in a short time. Clearly there were such wars. Vietnam and the Germans in WWII. Sortelli seems to think my bringing up Vietnam is someway of drawing broad comparisons between the two wars in Iraq and Vietnam. No. It is simply to point out the US has not quickly routed every enemy it has ever faced.

"I'm sorry, but I missed your credentials. How is it that you are able to assess the current "quagmire" and determine with such confidence US tactical capabilities? I was raised on military bases, been steeped in military culture and history and all I can say is that I haven't a clue as to what is the ultimate ability of the US military to project power. I think the world, including the US military, are redefining those capabilities on a daily basis. But hey, thanks for your considered insight."

Again this is not so much about US military power. It is clearly able to take on and destroy any other military force on the planet, even now after over a year in a warzone, though such a lengthy deployment must surely must have had some negative effect on fighting ability through attrition of personnel, equipment, running down of supplies and morale.

The main reason the efficacy of the US army is degraded is simply it is now a lot less likely to be deployed for several years to come as the public will be highly suspicious of future missions, much like it was after Vietnam. The ever changing reasons for going to war have gradually been shown to be bogus. In particular the revelations coming out of Abu Ghraib seem to have shaken the faith of people. Those who thought this was a war to give the Iraqi people freedom from oppression are now wondering what the hell is going on.

"Uh, yeah, tail whipped. As in worst case scenario for Sadr. His uprising didn't happen. He's a pariah amoung his own people. His fighters have to watch over their shoulders lest they be "disappeared" by the locals who are sick of their grandstanding and mosque desecrations. And he doesn't dare show his face to his Iranian masters because he screwed up their clever "master plan." I wouldn't want to be in his shoes, would you?

As one of those that called for a more forceful dealing to al-Sadr I give Kudos to the adminstration for its deft handling of the issue. I'm suprised that you don't recognize the subtle nuance of it all, given your level of military experetise."

Like I said, the ceasefire was probably the right thing to do under the conditions. My main argument with Sortelli was simply with his characterisation of events as a 'tail whipping' for Al Sadr. It clearly was nothing of the sort.

"Sorry, but I'll have to see a link before I believe that (a) the Clinton Administration was that criminally, epically, negligent and that (b) it was a coincidence that this was achieved a few weeks after Sadam was flushed from his spider hole."

I can't find the original article were I read about Libya offering up its WMD program in return for lifting of sanctions. However here is a different article that goes into a lot more detail than I was personally aware of. Libya's attempts at reforming itself in the eyes of the international community seem to go as far back as the late days of the first Bush admin. It looks like the Clintonites did make Libya's WMD program part of the requirements for Libya having sanctions lifted. This is somewhat different to what was in the original article I read.

So, it looks like invading Iraq had little to do with Libya handing over its WMD, though the Bushies deserve some credit for continuing the work that occured in the Clinton and Bush I years.

al-Sadr is like that Knight in the Holy Grail movie with his arm and leg cut off saying its just a flesh wound an you agreeing. His followers are being decimated and attacked by towns people he has know support from real clerics. But you go on with your little fantasy Stewart keep getting your panties wet on photos of naked Iraqi men.

Jack: Our military is less effective now because of Iraq! Here are some links that have hardly anything to do with my point! -> Sortelli: Our military is less effective now? WTF? Was there a country (ie Iraq or Afghanistan) that we didn't dominate? -> Stewart "Contextually Challenged" Kelly: YEAH VIETNAM

Heh heh, yeah, Gary. If you try to stir the public to revolt and the public decides to start shooting at you instead, I think that's a tail-whipping. As in catastrophic failure.

On the other hand, I'm willing to take Stewart's word on Libya offering up it's WMD program and Clinton turning it down, and I don't think that's a "criminally negligent" flop on Clinton's case. Until we actually saw what was being disarmed we didn't think Libya had much of a WMD program to give up and there were other concessions we wanted. In the end we got it anyway. And that's because our administrations stayed tough on Libya.

The most important thing to know about the Libyan disarmament, whether Iraq played a factor in it or not, is that it refutes the "distraction" arguement that says Bush isn't able to pursue other means of disarming rogue states and stopping WMD proliferation. Our allies were in on this, and that the US and Britain held up its sanctions longer than the rest of the world made a big difference.

Sortelli, you failed to specify, until now, that you were referring only to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume you aren't just conveniently making this up at this point in time to save face.

Regardless the US military is less effective now than it was pre-invasion of Iraq. That's just common-sense. Soldiers will be tired after a long deployment. Eight hundred odd are dead. I think the number injured is around ten thousand, a lot of them will not be returning to combat. That is to be expected in any long deployment.

What is much worse, as I've already said, will be the reluctance of the public to back future US military deployments. Without public backing pollies will likely lack the gumption to go to war. Hence the US militaries efficacy is reduced.

Stewart, you're really not in a position to gauge what the American public will or will not support, or that of any of the other coalition nations except maybe your own, and I wouldn't count on that either. By the way, do the "ten thousand injured" include minor injuries? Many of those injured are being redeployed once they heal up. Many of the injured wantto go back. Many of the ones who can't want to as well. But that doesn't fit into your little world view, now does it?

Andrea, I can read. That's enough to let me guage American opinion. There's plenty of people on the net spouting their opinions, and plenty of polls on the issue of war support. Is much more needed?

As for the injured obviously many of them will return to combat duty and many won't. According to this article, the ten thousand number represents people with largely serious medical problems. Minor injuries can be treated in Iraq, so the ten thousand figure is basically all those who needed to be evacuated to Europe or the US. The ten thousand does though include non-combat injuries and serious illness, some of which are deployment related, some of which are not.

What is worrying is that the number was current as of October last year. It only covers the first half of the war in Iraq. If injury and illness have continued at the same rate we are looking at around twenty thousand who have needed to be removed from Iraq. How many have returned to duy? Your guess is as good as mine, but obviously the loss of this large a number of people to serious injury and illness, whether temporary or permanent, has to degrade the combat ability of forces present to a significant degree.